Plan B Forum

Bainbridge Crew | Buffalo NY | Read Reviews + Get a Bidhttps://www.buildzoom.com › Search
Bainbridge Crew, in Buffalo, NY | Photos | Reviews | Based in Buffalo, ranks in the top 99% of licensed contractors in New York.

I was reading a story about Alex Jones and how he is using bankruptcy laws to try to get out of paying money to the people he slandered. I have had one encounter with bankruptcy laws. 25 years ago in Buffalo, a home improvement contractor - the Bainbridge Crew - who advertised often on TV took a $3000 deposit from me and then never showed up to do the work. I sued them in Small Claims (IIRC $3000 was in fact the limit for SC in those days) and they did not attend the hearing so of course I won. And then two days later they declared bankruptcy and I was out $3000. So I wondered if they were still around or back in business and with the help of Mr Google I found the above.

A lot of people might be impressed by the 'ranks in the top 99%' statement but I'm not.

I wonder if Alex's future earnings could be attached and some money he owes be paid to the victims...?

I don't know the law but it seems as though court-ordered liability fines should not be voided by a bankruptcy filing.

Andy, looks to me as tho your post tells us more about the rating service than it does about the Bainbridge Crew.

snailgate

Hey I’m in the top 99% too!


I think?

I think a lot of people are surprised with what bankruptcy can do to debts until they are faced with it. When I was in private practice I filed a number of personal bankruptcies and went to many creditor meetings (actually a misnomer since most creditors do not ever go to one) and recall one in which a creditor (a family member of the Petitioner (who was not my client) who was owed something like $10,000 and was quite upset to hear that he could not repay her even if he wanted to (all creditors stand equal to divide up whatever assets there are) would have to wait months, and even then might get nothing. She started screaming and crying at the Petitioner (who had apparently promised to pay her back in a month and then filed for bankruptcy) and was understandably upset. She was eventually escorted out of the office, but I'm sure she learned a lot that day.

There are some discussions to limit further the lawsuit awards that can be cancelled by bankruptcy, but so far there are very few exceptions.

Maybe it's time for the return of debtors prison.

Oh yes! Let’s oppress the majority of wage slaves through a sick economy skewed entirely toward the wealthy and corporate interests and with a profit driven disgustingly overpriced healthcare system and then when they find themselves mired in debt to barely make ends meet, let’s put them in prison! We can easily quadruple the incarceration rate and just imagine how much we could grow the already $11billion/year prison slave labor production rate!

Fucking abhorrent idiotic comment/position.

I don't have the national statistics, but the vast majority of Petitions I filed (over a hundred or so) were were caused by crippling medical debt, often combined with the ill/injured person losing their job and their insurance (and who can afford to pay for insurance without an income? Obamacare has made it more accessible, but still not really). These people generally lose everything they have worked for to pay a portion of their debts. But, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, businesses have used the bankruptcy laws to get out of "trouble" for years--why target individual debtor? For the most part, these debts are incurred by banks who understand their exposure under bankruptcy laws and adjust their pricing taking that into account; it's not all that common that a private individual is owed a debt by an individual--not so when the debtor is a business , such as in Andy's account.

Sure, there are people who manipulate the system, but the majority of the Donald Trump business owners (who use business law to shield their personal liability)i screwing individuals and small businesses) than low to moderate income individuals. And debtors prisons would do nothing to remedy that.

I think - to give him his due - Jarl was talking about Alex Jones. And while I am against debtors prisons just as I am against the death penalty, I'd willingly make an exception for Jones. Make a judgment against him for $150 mill and then sling him into an oubliette until every single penny plus interest has been coughed up. And then lose the paperwork for a year or two.

He apparently has no problem making a shit ton of money, so I’m curious as to how his petitions are getting around his income and how he will qualify for a discharge of his judgment obligations.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 81059/amp/

Hopefully, the Trustee will uncover some or all of his assets and seize them; it's not the easiest thing to conceal unless you have sleazy accountants and attorneys to advise you. And maybe this guy isn't smart enough to hire them. We can only hope.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 02, 2022 12:05 pm

Oh yes! Let’s oppress the majority of wage slaves through a sick economy skewed entirely toward the wealthy and corporate interests and with a profit driven disgustingly overpriced healthcare system and then when they find themselves mired in debt to barely make ends meet, let’s put them in prison! We can easily quadruple the incarceration rate and just imagine how much we could grow the already $11billion/year prison slave labor production rate!

Fucking abhorrent idiotic comment/position.

Hell must have frozen over.   I actually agree with BSG on this one.

-"BB"-

In another thread we talked about Citizens United and campaign finance reform as First Amendment issues. Of course they are, in the sense that shouting Fire! in a crowded theater is a FA issue. FWIW, we have concluded that there are limits to freedom of speech and I would say that Alex Jones' free speech, which he uses to tell and convince others that Sandy Hook was play and not real life, is akin to Fire! in a very crowded theater. And the speech itself is not the issue: I can go to the middle of the woods and should Fire! as much as I want and no-one would hear me and no-one would care. So context matters if only the size of the megaphone. So if I were to say the moronic things that Alex Jones spouts I hope I would be dismissed as a nut: but because Jones says it with all the kilowatts of radio power at his disposal it's right that his free speech should be limited or, and perhaps more accurately, he can say what he Iikes but he must be prepared to put up with the consequences.

Why don't disturbed people, gun nuts, absolute bastards etc. ever shoot Alex Jones and his ilk rather than little children in schools, innocent people in malls, and ordinary folks in homosexual clubs?

How can it be?

You're absolutely right Andy; free speech is a fundamental right, but it can be regulated for very specific reasons by narrowly tailored exceptions. One is that you cannot libel or slander people , and they have a right to be compensated if you do--you may even have to pay punitive damages. And Jones should be rightly held liable, whether he broadcast his bullshit, distributed leaflets, or just stood outside shouting it. The difference, of course, will be the measure of the damages, shouting on the street will usually be less than a wide broadcast. There are differences for public figures being the targets--the permissible speech is much broader.

Citizens United deserves a thread all its own. The rest has been removed

Libel and slander should be felonies. Punishments should include prison time, gigantic fines, and probably public flogging.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:05 pm

Why don't disturbed people, gun nuts, absolute bastards etc. ever shoot Alex Jones and his ilk rather than little children in schools, innocent people in malls, and ordinary folks in homosexual clubs?

How can it be?

Because the unhinged go after easy (soft) targets. People like Alex Jones have bodyguards and home security systems rivaling Fort Knox. Not to mention that the unhinged listen to and follow folks like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon, etc like disciples.

Jarlaxle wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:14 pm

Libel and slander should be felonies. Punishments should include prison time, gigantic fines, and probably public flogging.

I think they are crimes in some states, as I recall; probably early on one could be flogged or pilloried for those crimes (maybe even have you ear nailed to a post). If you like those sorts of penalties, I'm sure there are countries in the world that still have them, even relatively
prosperous places like Singapore or in the Middle East (they even turn it into a morality play for the populace by performing them publicly).

datsunaholic wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 02, 2022 6:14 pm

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 02, 2022 5:05 pm

Why don't disturbed people, gun nuts, absolute bastards etc. ever shoot Alex Jones and his ilk rather than little children in schools, innocent people in malls, and ordinary folks in homosexual clubs?

How can it be?

Because the unhinged go after easy (soft) targets. People like Alex Jones have bodyguards and home security systems rivaling Fort Knox. Not to mention that the unhinged listen to and follow folks like Alex Jones and Steve Bannon, etc like disciples.

Bingo!

Re Bankruptcy: Early in my career I was dispatched to bankruptcy court in an effort to save the personal injury & wrongful death judgments my firm had secured at trial against a particularly sleazy asbestos products manufacturer. After having lost at trial, the company filed an appeal but never posted a bond for the judgments, and almost immediately thereafter filed for bankruptcy. The company had tens of millions in assets that it was siphoning off to other entities in what very clearly appeared to be fraudulent transfers to avoid paying creditors. Not one, but two federal judges were on the bench and proceeded to kick my ass around the courtroom, telling me my motion was "anathema to the purpose of bankruptcy law." I said, "Your Honors, I admit to not knowing much of anything about bankruptcy law, but I do know when my clients are getting screwed over." And that is apparently the purpose of bankruptcy law, as my motion was summarily denied.

Re Freeze Peach: 1) Please stop with the "fire-in-a-crowded-theater" thing. It is a century-plus-old trope that was never the law and was only a bad analogy in an even worse case (US v Schenck, 1919, restricting rights to anti-war protest) that has long since been superseded by a standard of "incitement to imminent lawless action" (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).

2) There is a significant difference between governmental limitation of expression based on content (broadly impermissible) and defamation (libel and/or slander), which is a civil wrong to an individual, who can be compensated for any harm caused (and proven) by false and defamatory statements. In the United States, it is almost impossible to defame a public figure. Private individuals, who have not sought the public spotlight, can succeed in seeking damages, which is now the sole issue in the Alex Jones/Sandy Hook trial.

ETA:

Apparently 24 states have criminal defamation laws, which are most probably unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. From the ACLU site (send them money):

The Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions on criminal defamation laws in the 1960s, but in states that still have criminal defamation laws on the books, public officials have used them to prosecute critics. For example, the editor and publisher of a small newspaper in Kansas were convicted of criminal defamation after the paper published an article suggesting that the mayor lived in another county and was therefore ineligible for public office. A Massachusetts woman was convicted of criminal defamation in New Hampshire after she claimed that a coffee shop’s employees spit in police officers’ coffee. And a Kansas man was charged with criminal defamation after he posted a yard sign criticizing his local government’s inaction on a water drainage problem.

Freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the absolute right to spread malicious lies about people, but civil lawsuits are fully capable of addressing the harms caused by defamation. Several states have repealed these unconstitutional laws in recent years, and the remaining ones that still have them on the books should follow suit.